This is however indicative of the issues facing this country when a large number of people have no clue whatsoever where jobs come from or why companies hire employees.

Government cannot create jobs because they have no money; every dollar they spend comes out of the same economy they think they're helping. To illustrate this point put all of your cash in your right pocket. Now take it out of that pocket and put it in the left pocket. Now let us know how much better off you are. BTW to make matters worse try it again with a middleman doing the transfer and having to pay for the transfer of your money.

Gene from GEORGIA says yes
because of the gment take over of a private company, which I owned stock in, I now will have to employ myself for a few more years that I would not have to. Thanks O, ya prick.

GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says Agreed Mike, the bailouts
mostly went as payback to the auto unions and city and state pensions. Payback at taxpayer cost.

The only ones believe the BS are those who believed in Hope and Change...

If the bailout was for the autoworkers, wonder why so many dealerships closed?

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says The government bailout of the auto industry
really didn't create jobs, so much as it delayed losing jobs..If as Major says, it is the world economy causing the problems, you really cannot expect all of the loans to be a long lasting solution..Now if President Obama takes it one step farther and mandates everyone buy an American car or pay an additional tax, you might for a time actually see some return for the investment..Either that or we actually just plod along until the economy actually does start getting better..It is not going to be an instsant fix, which our liberal friends are telling us has already happened..

mac

Rusticus from MASSACHUSETTS says following the logic of the OP
there should be no criticism of the POTUS concerning jobs.

As MikeF so aptly states, "government cannot create jobs" and the main argument here is that government is not creating enough jobs. Looks like a handful of crap to me.

If tax cuts create jobs, it has been ten years since the signing of the "Bush tax cuts", we should be swimming in soft water with unemployment at record lows if that was true. Why is employment lagging?

BamaBassHunter #12418 from ALABAMA says employment is lagging
because businesses do not know what were going to get hit with for sure from obanmacare in taxes and ect. also wondering what they will do next to small business as well as for an corp.

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says Rusticus, you know damned well
The only jobs government can create are government jobs..Tax cuts or no tax cuts that remains a basic truth..Now government can create an atmosphere suitable for or enhancing to job creation in the private sector..Too much taxing and government interference can stiffle the private sectors efforts or their desires to do so..Yes, there is reason for taxing and regulating, but too much is just as bad or worse than none..

mac

MikeF from FLORIDA says another moron here?
Even in my example you can see government can stymie the growth of jobs. The list of things done wrong is vast. But if you don't understand why, what's the point of listing them? An ignorant voter is the tool of mis-administration.

Rusticus from MASSACHUSETTS says ten years of tax cuts.
why would anyone create a job due to a tax cut?

Demand creates the need to hire, that never changes.

If you are depending on a tax cut or a regulation change in order to bring another person on board, you will be wasting your time.

thank you for your answers though, they are very insightful and in depth.

MikeF from FLORIDA says too deep for you
I do not recall ever advocating tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy. Taxes should always equal spending. Taxes should be set at reasonable rates with everyone who makes an income over the poverty line paying a minimum tax. People making less than the poverty line should not pay taxes. And no government should run a deficit for any reason short of war.

What you morons don't get is there is a need for government in a free market economy but too much is just as bad as too little.

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says Point well taken Rusti
But at the same time if a tax is going to be increased or a regulation enforced, could not that also be a turn off to binging another person onboard..It is a your damned if you do and your damned if you don't situation..There is little to nothing the government can do to force increased employment..There is a lot they can do to stiffle it..I do not have the answers, and from your posts, neither do you..It is obvious our political leadership has few clues on fixing our economy..No doubt they have a ton of ideas, so far few of them have had much impact toward the positive..The economy may be better than it was three years ago, but it is far from being as good as it was 5 years ago..

mac

Ereich (74.75.15.134) from MAINE says Let's try too little for a while
to see if that is correct. We have had too much for over 100 years.

Cougarcat from ALABAMA says How many are stupid enough to think losing
How many are stupid enough to think losing those jobs would have been a good thing?

How pious you are! Above the rest of us.

Yes, by the way I did lose my GM stock and didn't buy more.

BamaBassHunter #12418 from ALABAMA says try this
If a company makes more money then they have more cash to hire another employee or buy more equipment. You have to have more people to run those machines therefore a tax cut or less regulations cost companys less therefore more cash for expansion.

Major Johnson#15608 (75.66.177.218) from TENNESSEE says And no government should run a deficit for any reason short of war.
Then why would cut taxes while fighting two wars? Oh that's right neocon line of thought.

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says I thought I was clear when I said
The government can only create government jobs..It doesn't matter if those jobs are expanding military bases, building schools, building infrastructure or any other you would care to name..They are under contract by the government, hence they are government jobs..By the way Major if you would care to check, there have been one hell of a lot more military bases closed in the last 30 or so years than have been built..Spending to build military equipment can and does create jobs, but once again they are under contract by the government..Defense spending is a great portion of our government spending and it is all within the Constitution..The main reason our Congress critters push for all of these is simply to get votes..I can't say as I blame them..

mac

MikeF from FLORIDA says see what I mean about morons
They have no idea what effect taking money out of the economy for government spending has on jobs. If we can't get smarter people we will not solve these problems.

If government spending creates jobs by putting money in the economy then anyone other than a moron should eventually figure out that taking money out of the economy would have the exact f*cking opposite effect.

Morons are sucking the life out of America.

Rusticus from MASSACHUSETTS says too much regulation?
would that be like ENRON? SILVERADO S&L? The latest Barclay/banks/libor fiasco? Or the last meltdown due to relaxed regulations allowing "everyone" to buy a home? Maybe the department of mining should just fold up and let the miners work wherever at the employers will.

MikeF, are you from Jacksonville? Have you been following the TB problem there? 20 dead so far and it appears to be expanding.

GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says The morons don't undertsand economics or history!
Well lets see, Reagan following the Carter failure with significant tax cuts, and that spurred one of the largest economic expansions we've seen in our lifetimes. Clinton did to some degree, especially capital gains, GWB did so and post his tax cuts and prior to the mortgage crises, unemployment was in the low 5's.

The problems is that spending cuts were never balanced with the tax cuts.

This administrtation has grown government in three years ten times the amount Reagan grew in eight years. And, after $5Trillion in additional spending, unemployment is still > 8%. What more do morons want?

Now this president wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those above $250K. And you morons have no clue the impact of that political season sales pitch for votes!

Via CNN - According to the chief economist at JP Morgan Chase. if we proceed with Obama's tax plan and extend the Bush tax cuts for only those making less than 250k, we would cut a full percentage from our current 1.9% GDP growth. Really, a plan to cut our growth rate in half?

Yeah, that sounds like a great economic plan right now, huh?

Ereich (74.75.15.134) from MAINE says it is a mistake to refer to the current tax rates as the Bush tax cuts
for the entire Obama presidency a massive tax increase has been pending because of his proclivity for class warfare.

In 2013 this country faces a double whammy. A return to to the prebush tax rates would be the largest tax increase in history. Obamacare already holds that distinction.

MikeF from FLORIDA says nice dodge
Bad regulations allowed things like Enron, the S&L collapse in the 80's and the home mortgage fiasco to happen. More bad regulations won't help.

When you're doing things poorly the worst thing you can do is more of it.

Our stock market is being adversely affected by hedge funds and thanks to special regulations it's all perfectly legal along with Credit Default Swaps which had to be specifically exempted from gambling regulations. The EPA has regulated the end of coal which raises the cost of electricity. Regulations are used to stop many construction projects. Regulations are being used to stop nuclear power plants.

We need, no require, good regulation of our economy but only to the point that it stops any group from controlling supply or demand and to protect our citizens. Any more or any less is bad. Right now we have way too much regulation but with some very big holes specifically existing to benefit specific groups.

Change your first line to "regulations caused things like Enron, the S&L collapse in the 80's and the home mortgage fiasco to happen" and we will agree.

tpd (173.200.117.25) from TEXAS says cuts
Why isn't either side talking about fixing the defecit and developing a budget within our means? Tax cuts and increases don't matter if we don't spend wisely. Make sound financial decisions and the rest will take care of itself.

MikeF from FLORIDA says sorry Ereich
But even though we're on the same side of the fence we're miles apart on what's needed.

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says Rusti, most reulations have some
negative impact on the businesses they are concerned with..Now that is not to say that some regulations do not have some positive benefit on the workers or the customers of the regulated business..Regulation does a lot more than just provide safety for workers and customers..It often increases the cost of the product to such an extent the number of possible customers or products is sorely limited..This obviously isn't good for the customers or the businesses involved..At the same time if there were not some regulation you could only guess at the number of unsafe products produced or the number of unsafe procedures used to produce them..Even with all of the current regulation there are still unsafe products and unsafe production methods being used to produce them..We see the results of them virtually everyday..

There is not a single "one best way"..As I said in an earlier post it is a damned if you do and a damned if you don't scenario..I doubt seriously if you can build a toy that some kid cannot take apart and endanger itself by putting any of the parts in its mouth and possibly swallowing them..It is a nice thought, but probably an unrealistic goal..Generally speaking, if a child cannot dismantle the toy, they will find another way to endanger themselves with it when out of view of a guardian's supervision..Will all children do this, of course not..But some will or might..Some children will put anything into their mouths, others won't..

Virtually anything and everything we come into contact with on a daily basis can be dangerous if improperly used..What are we to do, restrict everything or take a realistic look at each situation..Look at all of the warnings we now have on many products, some of the verge on stupidity, but of course there are some stupid people out there that somehow we have decided to attempt to protect..

mac

Rusticus from MASSACHUSETTS says it is starting to look like
MikeF types, doesn't say anything, but he does type. Will he ever actually list a regulation or just continue to spew nonsense? Stay tuned folks. Oh,MikeF, would you consider having the NG industry drill for oil in your neighborhood? Why not or why for?

Mac, let's consider completely deregulating all industries, no oversight on what goes into food, the water, the air. Would you consider that to be a prudent way of taking care of business? It certainly would save companies a lot of money.

BTW I have no issue with good regulation; just like I'm for healthcare reform. The difference is I'm not stupid enough to think that all regulations are good or that obamacare solved any of the problems working Americans have with healthcare.

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says Rusticus, show me where I even mentioned
deregulation..Deregulation for the most part is just as stupid as over regulating or thoughtless regulation..Regulating to just be regulating is often a waste..Deregulating just to be deregulating would have about the same results..No doubt there are some regulations that should be done away with, just as there are beyond doubt activities and products that need regulation..A good regulation would be one causing the least amount of disruption, yet providing the most benefit..Currently we have many regulations that provide little to no benefit with the greatest amount of disruption in the overall process of manufacturing, selling and using the end product..For example if you were to develope a product or a service that virtually everyone would benefit from, but due to regulation it is prohibitively costly and there fore unavailable to most people, you have accomplished almost nothing..At the same time, if the product or service is subject to misuse and abuse, it becomes a virtual requirement that it be regulated in some manner..For example, if weapons were regulated to the point no one could legally own them, those that care not if it is legal or not will be the only ones having them..Advantage would go to those that just do not give a crap..The same is true if the situation were the opposite..The current world situation and history pretty much backs this up..There are more ways to threaten, harm or kill people than there are effective regulations to prevent them..

mac

Rusticus from MASSACHUSETTS says would one of you "smartest guys in the room"
give me an example of a bad regulation concerning, Deepwater oil drilling, Hydrofracturing for natural gas on land, or workers rights.

Mac, what product does regulation increase the cost of a product that most people cannot buy it? (your words)

MikeF, you're still typing, not saying anything, but you are typing. That was no deflection from me, it was a question that you chose not to answer.

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says I have no idea where you read that PJ,
I certainly did not say it..I did mention regulation may increase costs to the point that some cannot afford to buy the product..I cannot afford to purchase a lot of things..Regulation may not prevent me from doing so, but at the same time, the increase in cost due to regulation makes the costs beyond my means..Do I need or require these products to survive, obviously not..Would they or could they make my life more comfortable or enjoyable, perhaps..Does it really matter, not really as I cannot afford these products and do not buy them..Not everyone can afford prime rib and lobster for dinner..Some people can't even afford dried beans or rice, with or without food stamps..

Most regulations tend to increase the cost of the service /product in one fashion or the other..I certainly did not say all regulation was bad, nor will I ever say all regulation is good..The good intentions of some regulations have unexpected side effects..You seem to want to overlook these, or at least that is the way you come across..

mac

PJzaBruin (74.100.114.169) from CALIFORNIA says Just wondering, Mac
is attributing something in this thread to me just indicative of PJ Derangement Syndrome?

Someone challenges what you have said, and you have to attribute that challenge to me? Someone asks you to document or explain your words, and when you can't, you have to accuse me of something?

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says You will have to acknowledge
you and Rusticus have the same writing styles and often use the same phrases..No that might not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt you are one and the same, but it most certainly is reasonable to believe you could be..

mac

PJzaBruin (74.100.114.169) from CALIFORNIA says I haven't paid that much attention to his posts, Mac
but he does seem to be literate. That is to say, he understands the basics of grammar and punctuation, which sets him apart from many of the posters here. And he's not conservative, so there is that as well.

But since I'm too cheap to pay for red letters, I would think that should end the speculation. If I'm not going to put my handle of very long standing in red, I'm certainly not going to run out and buy a new handle in red.

So I do have to chalk it up to PDS (PJ Derangement Syndrome), because I don't believe you to be narcissistic enough to believe that only one person would have the nerve to disagree with you AND be literate at the same time. (I've been through that once before on this board, and believe I can tell the difference.)

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says I am so sorry to have attempted to
burst your bubble, although I have found your posts to be well written (for the most part), don't think so highly of yourself believing everyone or even anyone is stalking you..You are not that memorable or exciting..It is interesting you have even come up with a name for anyone responding to your inanity..Your paranoia is begining to equal Kat Haks..I truly thought better of you..It hurts to have my man crush be so wasted..I guess I will just go out in the back yard and eat worms to atone..By the way it is not the "PJ Derangement Syndrome", the proper title is "PJ is Deranged Syndrome"..If you continue patting yourself on the back, congratulating yourself you may damage your spine..It would be sad to see you crippled, especially from your own doing..

mac

PJzaBruin (74.100.114.169) from CALIFORNIA says ROFLMAO, Mac!
Somehow, you stalking Brad and falsely accusing me of making postings in opposition to you under an alias is MY problem? That is HILARIOUS!!

Yeah, you're right... I must be the one who is deranged.

heh heh heh

mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.167.169) from CALIFORNIA says You seem to be the only one
overly concerned about the situation..With your over inflated ego one might think you would welcome the attention..Thank you for saying I am correct about your derangement..But to be honest it is obvious, even to one as uneducated as I..Keep working on your self importance, perhaps you can convince others as you have yourself..

The world was spinning around long before you or I ever entered the scene, chances are it will continue to do so when we depart.